The study examines whether financial sentiment tools that are validated against human labels also reliably predict market outcomes. Using a large corpus of securities class action messages linked to abnormal stock returns, the authors compare five sentiment instruments—VADER, Loughran‑McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter‑RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator—within a single pipeline. Results show that the alignment between human agreement and sentiment scores varies with sampling strategy and time horizon: conventional sampling favors same‑day associations, while fixed‑n panels yield similar correlations for both same‑day and one‑day‑ahead predictions, yet overall predictive rankings remain weak.
By AS Aravinthkakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani
The paper examines whether human agreement and return association can be used interchangeably as criteria for validating sentiment tools in financial NLP. Using a large corpus of securities class action messages linked to abnormal stock returns, the authors compare five sentiment instruments and find that the relationship between human agreement and predictive validity varies with sampling conventions and score representations. They conclude that benchmark agreement establishes semantic validity but does not guarantee predictive rankings, and that message volume in a spam‑heavy conversation does not predict market damage or settlement size.
By AS Aravinthakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani
arXiv:2608. 14329v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Principle-based regulation, with evaluative standards such as "fair, clear, and not misleading" or "deliver good outcomes", cannot be reduced to binary predicates, and LLM-as-judge is increasingly used as the substitute.
By Dipankar Sarkar
arXiv:2607. 26368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways.
By Aman Kumar, Lasitha Vidyaratne, Dipanjan D Ghosh, Arnab Chakrabarti, Ahmed K Farahat
Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks.
arXiv:2602. 07294v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the increasing deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the finance domain, LLMs are increasingly expected to parse complex regulatory disclosures.
By Yidong Jiang, Junrong Chen, Eftychia Makri, Jialin Chen, Peiwen Li, Ali Maatouk, Leandros Tassiulas, Eliot Brenner, Bing Xiang, Rex Ying